Hi
If you shift and stitch instead of panning and stitching you avoid loosing res by (un)distorting your image.
true, but then if you pan and stitch instead of
just shifting you gain much more resolution
and you avoid getting out of the sweet spot of the lens. All of the lenses I have which can be shifted are much sweeter in the center than at the edges.
If you were to shift and stich it would create more pixles, would remove the need to perspective correct
but will get you out of the sweet spot of the lens and because you are magnifying the image more (4000 pixels out of the entire width of 35mm frame is less magnification than 4000 pixels out of one half of its width) by using the 4/3 format then you will observe the limits of the lens more.
All 35mm film lenses have enough image circle for shift on m4/3 (and MF too).
and of course the vast majority of wide lenses suck at the edges. On 4/3 the lenses which equate to a 24mm (on 35mm or a 90mm on 4x5) are those with focal lengths below 14mm now, can you name me many of those which are sharp on the edges, not stratospheric in price and of a mount which there are any supported shift adaptors?
Some of do want to shift long lenses and "get it right" ... but the benefits are not so apparent.
shifting long lenses will produce minimal distortion correction effects. The angle of view changes less and the coverage is insufficient. The effects and benefits of shift are more significant on wider lenses and I would argue (and I would say that I own and operate such equipment) that while the lord giveth with the hand of extra coverage he taketh away with the loss of lens sharpness at the edges.
So I reckon that putting a 28mm on a 4/3 camera, taking an array of overlapping shots then perspective correcting that will offer a better image than if you put a 28mm shift lens onto the camera and did the same.
More so with a 24mm
Further if you put a 50mm lens on and stitch the same image you'll have so many megapixels to play with you'll have essentially no losses worth mentioning in the correction
so there is the theory and then there is the application of the theory
my 90mm lens on my 4x5 sucks when it comes to reading the LP/MM specs of resolution compared to my 24mm lens on 35mm. The thing is however you need to magnify more to make the print with the 35mm, and so ...
some interesting reading for you:
http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2009/02/lens-tests-whats-missing.html
so perhaps your assumption on "some of us want to get it right" was a wee bit unfounded (when it comes to me at least)